Sound Like Cyprus? The SEC Proposed This Strict New Rule on Money Market Account Withdrawals

The Securities and Exchange Commission proposed last week a new rule that would make it more difficult for investors to withdraw from money market investment funds “during times of financial distress,” as Reuters puts it.

Yes, the SEC is mulling a proposal that would delay withdrawal requests from institutional investors (as opposed to individual investors) during financial crises. Sounds a little like Cyprus, no?

The SEC voted 5-0 to advance additional reforms, which would require shares of some money-market funds to “float”, instead of having a fixed value of $1 per share. The proposal failed to gain support last year but has since won the backing of a panel of regulators that include Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

The agency also proposed new fees on withdrawals from funds if their assets that can be readily converted into cash fall below a certain level.

The public has 90 days to comment on the proposals. At some later point, the agency would finalize the rules or settle on a modified version of them.

Requiring values to float would make some money funds more like bonds, whose principal changes with increases or decreases in interest rates. That’s a fundamental shift because it means investors could lose principal if the value falls below $1.

Proponents say it is necessary change because it would show money funds, while safer than stocks and many other investments, still carry some level of risk. They say more awareness of the risk would reduce the potential for runs on money funds.

The SEC proposal would limit the floating-value requirement to those money-market funds known as “prime.”

Prime funds attract mainly big institutional investors as opposed to retail customers and are considered more risk-prone because they invest in short-term corporate debt. They represent roughly half of the total $2.9 trillion assets held by all money-market mutual funds.

.

Exempt from the floating-value requirement would be money-market funds that hold at least 80 percent of their assets in cash or government securities, and retail funds – those limiting an investor’s withdrawals to a maximum of $1 million per business day.

The problems in money-market funds during the 2008 crisis didn’t involve those types of funds, SEC officials said.

“While money-market funds have … long served as an important investment vehicle, the financial crisis of 2008 highlighted the susceptibility of these products to runs,” SEC Chairman Mary Jo White said before the vote.

Mary Schapiro, who stepped down as SEC chairman in December, pushed unsuccessfully last year for a floating value for all money-market funds and a requirement that money funds hold capital reserves of 1 percent of the fund’s assets. But three of the five commissioners opposed those changes and her proposal was never brought to a vote.

Some commissioners appeared to be sympathetic to arguments made by representatives for the industry, who complained that most of the changes previously recommended would make money funds unattractive and lead to fewer investors.

This time, however, the SEC faced pressure from the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a group of high-level regulators that has backed both the floating-value requirement and calls for strict capital reserves. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew both sit on the panel.

So what it really says is not that there's an 85% increase, but a 55%-85% increase. But 85% sounds more scary so you concealed (or denied) the truth. And that's before a 70% tax subsidy for a family making $49k - and that subsidy is applied AFTER the increase. THAT MEANS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE GOING TO ME PAYING LESSWHILE ALSO GETTING MUCH BETTER INSURANCE.

This is why you don't have any credibility Vette. The facts (math) says that most people are going to be getting more health care for less money. And you lie, spin, and parrot lies all day long to avoid having to tell the truth about something.

Now if you think I've missed something here then I'd love to hear what facts you can show me. But I have the feeling that your response will be more fact-free gibberish, non-sequiters, personal attacks, or fecal-based retorts. Prove me wrong.

I'm apparently having a retard day. Where does it say 70% subsidy and where does it show how much the family needs to make to receive them?

__________________
"Ask not the sparrow how the eagle soars"
~Kiryuin Satsuki

72% subsidy for a family of four (2 children), all non-smokers, parents age is 40.

Monthly out of pocket cost is $268 and that's for the SILVER plan.

The Vettebigot refuses to acknowledge the subsidies, and once again his dishonesty brings great shame to himself, his family (including his three surviving sons Lee, Harvey and Oswald) and the United States Marine Corps.

"The president sold his health care law to Ohioans as a way to bring down costs, but instead, many will pay nearly $200 extra every month while also paying higher taxes. It’s unfair to struggling families and taxpayers, and it’s another reason why we have to repeal this law and focus on patient-centered reforms that will actually lower health care costs and protect jobs."
- Speaker John Boehner

Three years ago, President Obama promised a crowd in Strongsville, Ohio that his new health care law “would reduce most people’s premiums.” Unfortunately for the Buckeye State, that’s another promise by the president that isn’t panning out: a new report shows individual premiums in Ohio will spike by 88 percent under ObamaCare. In Forbes, Avik Roy writes:

“[O]n Thursday, the Ohio Department of Insurance announced that, based on the rates submitted by insurers to date, the average individual-markethealth insurance premium in 2014 will come in around $420, ‘representing an increase of 88 percent’ relative to 2013. ‘We have warned of these increases,’ said Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor in a statement. ‘Consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in 2014.’”

According to The Hill, “the average premium for an individual healthcare policy will likely rise from $223 per month to $420…” That’s almost $200 more in health care costs every month for Ohioans buying individual coverage – or nearly $2,400 more out of their paycheck each year.

The disappointing news is consistent with the recent “rate shock” report by the Energy & Commerce Committee. The committee compiled data from the nation’s largest insurers showing rates on the individual market are going to double, with some soaring by as much as 400 percent.

Forbes says the biggest factors driving up prices are provisions in the law “forcing people to buy richer insurance benefits; to buy products with all sorts of add-ons they might not need; to pay Obamacare’s premium tax; and to pay a lot more, if they’re young, to subsidize older individuals.”

While some “lower-income folks who benefit from the subsidies provided by other taxpayers” may see costs go down, Roy notes that “middle-class Ohioans will pay more in taxes to pay for those subsidies, and more in premiums” under the president’s health care law.

Lowering health care costs is an important part of the Republican Plan for Economic Growth & Jobs, which calls for fully repealing the president’s health care law. Learn more about it at gop.gov/jobs.

~Hitting the switch on the thread exhaust fan, the feedlot just got another layer of leftist bullshit~

Daniel Kessler: ObamaCare Is Raising Insurance Costs
Despite what you read, premiums in Oregon and California are going up, especially for the young.

Just to be clear, the group this article is referring to is about 7%-10% of the population.

Secondly, the vast majority of them will be getting a subsidy that exceeds the value of their premium increase. That means they'll be paying less. And they're going to get better coverage for paying less and their insurance company can't drop them in case they need expensive care.

Just to be clear, the group this article is referring to is about 7%-10% of the population.

Secondly, the vast majority of them will be getting a subsidy that exceeds the value of their premium increase. That means they'll be paying less. And they're going to get better coverage for paying less and their insurance company can't drop them in case they need expensive care.

Just to be clear, the group this article is referring to is about 7%-10% of the population.

Secondly, the vast majority of them will be getting a subsidy that exceeds the value of their premium increase. That means they'll be paying less. And they're going to get better coverage for paying less and their insurance company can't drop them in case they need expensive care.